Outside the Walnut Street Theatre, the poster for David Auburn’s Proof deems the play a “Pulitzer Prize-winning masterpiece about fathers and daughters.”

While accurate, this tagline really sells the play short. For starters, Proof actually won several awards in 2001, including the Tony Award for Best Play (with the entire original Broadway cast receiving nominations). It was also the basis of a 2005 film of the same title starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Anthony Hopkins, the screenplay having been adapted by Auburn himself. As for the plot, it’s more than a touchy-feely story about a girl and her daddy; it’s a story about what it means to be brilliant. Or crazy. Or both.

Set in Chicago, the play focuses on 25-year-old Catherine (Alex Keiper) as she struggles to cope with the recent death of her father, Robert (Bill Van Horn), a mathematical genius and college professor who suffered from mental illness. A budding mathematician herself, Catherine puts her life on hold to care for him in his final years, developing a special bond that is captured beautifully by Keiper and Van Horn.

Complicating Catherine’s grieving is her estranged, maternal older sister Claire (Krista Apple), who returns from New York for the funeral and immediately begins tending to her like a wounded puppy. It’s Catherine’s combative demeanor toward her sister that yields some of the play’s most memorable quips (“What the fuck is jojoba?”).

Meanwhile, different sparks start to fly between Catherine and her father’s former student, Hal (David Raphaely), who has been stopping by the house to go through his mentor’s hundreds of notebooks filled with intelligible musings. With his mop-top and screechy voice, Raphaely is a perfect fit for the nerdy heartthrob role. Yet, when Hal finally discovers the groundbreaking mathematical proof he was hoping to find, he and Catherine’s brief romance comes to a halt and the plot boils to a head: Catherine claims she wrote it.

Is it possible that Catherine has inherited her father’s extraordinary gift and if so, has she also inherited his madness? No one really knows—not even Catherine. But without a way to really prove the proof’s authorship, Claire and Hal lean toward the latter. That’s the thing about relationships—they’re often as complex and uncertain as a mathematical proof.

Having read Auburn’s sharp stage play back in high school I was elated to finally see it live expecting it to completely enhance the experience—a wonderful reminder of why I fell in love with the play in the first place. But even in the dark, intimate Independence Studio on 3, I felt no more connected to the characters and left the theater slightly under-whelmed.

In my attempt to pinpoint where the play might have gone wrong, I couldn’t help but compare it with the film, which despite adding very minor additional characters and cutting some of the expletives, brought Auburn’s original masterpiece to life almost exactly how I envisioned it.

Paltrow, who actually first played Catherine in a London stage production, nails her to a T. She plays Catherine as detached and slightly manic, leaving the audience wary of her mental stability. Keiper’s version of Catherine, on the other hand, with her over-dramatic facial expressions, voice projection and body language, comes off unhinged and aggressive. During a pivotal scene clearly meant to pull on your heartstrings, she delivered her lines appearing inexplicably enraged.

Sure, it might be a bit unfair to compare a young actress to an Academy Award winner, but when you have such a character-driven play, the subtleties make a big difference. Also, with the theatrical production set entirely on their back porch, the film offers much more of a portal into the character’s world—you actually get to see Robert’s cluttered office and the beautiful college campus he loved so dearly.

But did any of this ruin the play? Absolutely not. It would be pretty hard to screw up Proof. But just remember that a Netflix subscription costs $7.99 and a theater ticket is $30.

COMMENTS

Comments 1 - 104 of 104

1. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 09:23AM

“This is not a theater review, it's an add for Netflix. Bad form, PW.”

2. Gobsmacked said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 09:23AM

“Is Ms. Finkbiner ACTUALLY comparing the production values of a big budget movie to a theater production upstairs at the Walnut? Why is a theater reviewer comparing the production of a play to a movie and encouraging readers to rent a film instead of experiencing live theater? Seriously? This is supposed to be theater review, not the rambling opinions of a teenager's tumblr page. She struggles to assess the production and can only draw her critical comparisons from a film. It makes one wonder if Ms. Finkbiner has even the smallest level of education in the discipline she is writing about. Her Linkedin profile lists her as an intern and listing editor. Is this the value The Weekly places on the art of theater and it's community? I am gobsmacked that this made it to press.And please tell me that the misuse of the word "intelligible" is a typo and just an insult to the art of editing. Not an additional insult to writers and readers of the English language.”

3. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 09:37AM

“This is by far one of the most horrendous acts someone who claims to be a reviewer can do. Firstly, you show no respect for the craft by telling people to get a Netflix subscription instead of seeing live theatre. That is like telling people to buy a CD or download music on Itunes but don't bother seeing that artist live cause let's face it, that will cost more than the $9.99 you paid for the download. Seriously, get it together PW.”

4. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 09:37AM

“This is by far one of the most horrendous acts someone who claims to be a reviewer can do. Firstly, you show no respect for the craft by telling people to get a Netflix subscription instead of seeing live theatre. That is like telling people to buy a CD or download music on Itunes but don't bother seeing that artist live cause let's face it, that will cost more than the $9.99 you paid for the download. Seriously, get it together PW.”

5. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:10AM

“Netflix really? Who is the editor? Integrity?”

6. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:10AM

“Netflix really? Who is the editor? Integrity?”

7. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:13AM

“It is my understanding that the free weeklies love reader comments--even negative ones--because it helps them tally their readership, which in turn drives ad sales. PW: please do not tally me, despite this comment. Because I will never, ever read an article by Nicole Finkbiner ever again. One naive, shallow, poorly written article is enough.”

8. Michael Walker said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:18AM

“Ms. Finkbiner, you should be ashamed of yourself. The theater is a place for the imagination to come to life. It is a place where the audience is CHALLENGED, not force fed. It is a place where women still have facial expressions instead of botoxed foreheads that never move. The theatre is a place for people to be enraged, to become unhinged, and to push the boundaries of the human spirit. I hope that you realize that the arts are struggling and that the LAST thing they need, is a reviewer who recommends a Netflix subscription. Instead they need a supporter with a critical eye that can help give feedback to the artists and inform the community. Your job is greater than yourself and you have a duty as a reviewer of live theater, to support it as an art form.”

9. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:26AM

“Nicole, please don't write a theater review ever again.”

10. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:36AM

“Dear Philadelphia Weekly~Please stop insulting those of us in the theater community. As theater professionals we are used to recieving good, bad, indifferent reviews...it's part of what we do and who we are...THIS is not a review and you should be ashamed to have printed such a thing.

”

11. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:40AM

“I could waste my time going through the basics of how the theater scene (and the arts scene in general) in Philly is a gigantic economic engine (and a fun night out, to boot), but Nicole, I'm just going to say this: ARE YOU F***ing kidding me? On the same theme: why bother reading Philadelphia Weekly, when I can read more cogent and thoughtful theatre reviews elsewhere. Unbelievable. PW: FIRE THIS WRITER NOW, or bust her back down to proofreader/coffee go-fer WHERE SHE BELONGS.”

12. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:43AM

“After re-reading, I'm convinced that Nicole rented "Proof" (via netflix, natch) and watched the movie just prior to the review. Am I close on this? I don't know who gave you your shot at theater criticism, Nicole...but you JUST BLEW IT.”

13. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:43AM

“After re-reading, I'm convinced that Nicole rented "Proof" (via netflix, natch) and watched the movie just prior to the review. Am I close on this? I don't know who gave you your shot at theater criticism, Nicole...but you JUST BLEW IT.”

14. Benjamin Lloyd said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:53AM

“Wow. PW deservedly takes it on the chin for this travesty. This woman has no business writing about theater. Cooper where are you? Come back, please!”

15. joe said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:53AM

“I will go out of my way to never read a PW review again; I will advise my friends and advertisers to avoid this paper. This isn't a review. It's shameful and mean-spirited and that last line...Nicole, you are the worst kind of idiot. I hope every theater in this city wises up and doesn't give a cruel dullard like you a seat for this sort of masturbatory, knuckle-dragging pablum ever again. Woe be to you if we ever end up in the same house, for the same show.”

16. Franklin said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:03AM

“Oh, and PW: If you think this is one of those "controversy will bring them back for more" type of thing, THINK AGAIN. Philly theaters: please, PLEASE pull your advertising from PW immediately. I know that PW is stingy with the arts coverage (outside of music), but this is a beyond-the-pale needless attack on the livelihood of artists. Do not support a paper that does not support the Arts.”

17. Anneliese Van Arsdale said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:03AM

“But just remember the budget for a movie like PROOF is in the multi-millions, and the budget for a production of PROOF at The Walnut Street Theatre's Studio 3 space featuring Philadelphia actors, designers, a director and technicians is probably less than $50,000. There. Problem solved. Comparison entirely irrelevant.”

18. Anneliese Van Arsdale said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:03AM

“But just remember the budget for a movie like PROOF is in the multi-millions, and the budget for a production of PROOF at The Walnut Street Theatre's Studio 3 space featuring Philadelphia actors, designers, a director and technicians is probably less than $50,000. There. Problem solved. Comparison entirely irrelevant.”

19. Tracy said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:09AM

“So while you loved the movie, I still know nothing about the quality of this production. Performances? Staging? Interpretation? Costumes, lights, sound? Thanks, you were a big help. Not.”

“COOPER WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?! Hopefully you found a better paper to make use of your ACTUAL TALENT. You are certainly missed. This is the last straw, I've noticed over the last year that PW has increasingly not cared about the theatre community here in Philly. This cements that. We get the hint, and it really is your loss.”

22. Adam Woods said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:20AM

“Ew. This is disgusting. Bad form, PW.”

23. David said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:20AM

“This review isn't as well done as Roger Ebert's review of the movie version of PROOF.”

24. Mark Cofta said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:24AM

“I saw PROOF last night and was very impressed by Ms. Keiper's performance. Since I haven't seen the film, I can't attest to whether or not Ms. Paltrow "nails her to a T" (whatever that means), but I am happy to proclaim that Ms. Keiper gives a sincere, nuanced performance revealing Catherine's vulnerability and tenuous grasp on her own sanity. I've seen five other productions of PROOF and found this one the most engaging and gripping, and I heartily recommend it.”

25. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:36AM

“Great. Another brainiac to join the Amateur Hour of Philly theatre reviewers. PW, you must be so proud. Do real writers not exist anymore? Le sigh...”

26. Dan T said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:38AM

“I'm comparing this review of theater to Obama's review of the nation, aka the State of the Union address. Obama made some good points, while Ms. Finkbiner did not. Really, why couldn't you write something as compelling as the State of the Union address? Sure, it might be a bit unfair to compare a young columnist to the President of the United States, but when you both claim to be so passionate about your professions, the subtleties make a big difference. I'm leaving this comment feeling utterly under-whelmed by PW and this review.”

27. Michele Guidry said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:48AM

“If people stay home and choose to rent movies over going to the theatre, this reviewer will be out of a job. I devote my time trying to inspire young people to see the value of live performance, in an art form that is still largely not controlled by corporations, and is not subject to the same kind of censorship and greed for the all mighty dollar that manipulate the subject matter of film and television. PROOF was written as a play first-not a film. The reviewer is supposedly a theatre critic-perhaps she should try sticking to reviewing the performance actually happening in front of her (good or bad) and spend less time promoting another medium.”

28. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:49AM

“This article is not only idiotic and not actually a review of this particular production of Proof-it is damaging to the theatre community in general. You should never be allowed to review a play again.”

29. Peter Schmitz said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:51AM

“Well, as a theatre artist, I've seen bad reviews. One can accept that, it's part of the bargain one makes. And though I am not personally involved in this production, I have many friends and colleagues who are. They also know how the system works. They can take it. But rarely in my experience can I remember seeing in a reputable arts publication a review so self indulgent. For example:

"I couldn’t help but compare it with the film, which despite adding very minor additional characters and cutting some of the expletives, brought Auburn’s original masterpiece to life almost exactly how I envisioned it."

O yes, my dear, that was their intent - to fulfill YOUR vision of the piece! Please, when you return again to the theatre, and I hope you will, please allow yourself to be more open to sharing the imaginative work of the artists who are actually in front of you, not just having your own preconceptions confirmed. We might take you somewhere you didn't expect. That's theatre.”

30. Chris H said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:55AM

“The last line is the most egregious line I've ever read in a theater review. "Rent a movie, don't go see live theater?" Awesome. Then why write reviews or why read PW? For that matter, why do anything? Why not just stay home and stare at the wall?

Sure, it's unfair to compare a young actress to Gwyneth Paltrow, but let's just do it anyway. Sure, it's unfair to compare a live play where the actors don't get a break and perform in real time to a major motion picture filmed over a couple of years where the actors can be coached on line delivery for every single shot, but let's just do it anyway. Sure, it's unfair to print a piece of garbage in the paper and pretend it's a review, but let's just do it anyway. After all, what the hell else is there to do? Just stay home and watch a movie! Or, if that doesn't work, stare at the wall and imagine a world where things people say actually matter.”

31. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 12:07PM

“Also, can I just add how truly terrible the film version of PROOF was? Paltrow was paltry. Alex, you should be pleased that your performance was nothing like hers ;)”

32. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 12:15PM

“I thought the movie of proof was kindof terrible actually. The script of the play, on paper, is much better. But I have to say, though it may be a rough thing to hear, I agree with the review. It's not irrelevant to compare productions of the same material across media types. Critical essayists and reviewers do it all the time. It gives us perspective. The production was what one can usually expect from the Walnut Studio 3. It was a good choice of material, produced well, but utlmately not worth slathering with undeserved praise. The lead actress, though talented and watchable at times, was a bit one note in this. It's an opinion obviously, but its as valid as saying the show was perfect and that you should pay too much money to see it. The actors, directors, and theater professionals in this town need to toughen up if they think this review was bad.”

33. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 12:22PM

“In addition to the other justifiably outraged points, someone should point out how irresponsible it was to publish the Act-One cliffhanger. You've now taken the delight and thrill and surprise from the audience by printing it here in advance. Shame on you.”

34. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 12:23PM

“I too am completely surprised that a review as amateurish as this saw the light of day. It is perfectly understandable for a reviewer to feel underwhelmed by a production - it's not even that uncommon. However, what I demand in a critic is someone who is able to engage with the production in front of them and communicate its merits or drawbacks in an intelligent and useful way. This reads like a high school "compare and contrast" paper and our reviewer seems so keen to speak about a film that she has a hard time even mentioning the cast by name. It is a terrible shame that this is what passes for acceptable criticism in a major metropolitan area, and one of America's most vibrant theatre scenes. I would like to make an earnest appeal to Philly Weekly to reconsider this young lady's position with the publication.”

35. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 12:30PM

“Mz Finkbiner...your self-proclaimed solution to the cost-effectiveness of Netflix over live theatre in this very problematic "theatre review" is just as puzzling as the Proofs of which you attemp to speak. I assume your ticket was free? Am I correct on that? Because if you plug in those numbers...$0.00 < $7.99 And I do know that you are evaluating the costs for an average theatre-goer and DVD renter, but since this was a very personal review, filled with personal preferences and comparisons which were clearly spelled out, possibly you should use your own numbers for the equation before stating that the problem is solved. Because my fear is that your personal solution is incorrect.”

36. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 12:32PM

“In response to the comment about 'agreeing' with this review. I don't think any of this backlash has to do with any actual criticism of this particular production. Whether this company succeeded or not (and that will ALWAYS be a matter of opinion not fact, which theatre professionals - including professional theatre critics - can differentiate between), this article (I'm no longer calling it a review) is irresponsible and unprofessional. To me the issue at hand is about the integrity of the article, comparing theatre to film is its own trite stupidity, encouraging your readers to stay home and rent movies instead of going to see theatre is another thing entirely.”

37. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 12:42PM

“This is the line that takes the cake: "Also, with the theatrical production set entirely on their back porch, the film offers much more of a portal into the character’s world—you actually get to see Robert’s cluttered office and the beautiful college campus he loved so dearly."

Ms. Finkbiner, you are everything that is wrong with people. You show in this review just how- to put it simply- dumb you are. Honestly, I pity you. Of course a movie has the ability to show the viewer different scenes, that is the art of FILM. This is Theatre, where the audience relies on description and emotion to paint a story. This review is something you would read in a middle school newspaper, it holds no grounds for argument, or criticism. I agree with the other commenter, I would like to know about the lighting, sound, costumes, etc.

”

38. Get over yourself said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 01:08PM

“This is the single worst, most useless review I've ever read. This will officially be the last article I read from the Philadelphia Weekly. Where was the editor before this got published?

How dare you, NF. Review the production, not the play's history. How dare you bring a MOVIE into the mix, how dare you blame an actress for making different choices than YOU saw in your head (if you'll recall, there was also a director involved and SEVERAL other factors) and HOW DARE YOU get into the business of connecting people with theater and advise them to get online and stream a movie from over a decade ago. This wasn't a review, this read like a pesonal vendetta or some college high schooler's blog complaining that the play "War Horse" should've used real horses. But hey, soon you can catch an film adaption of that story instead of the Tony winning play on Netflix too! Get out of the business, NF. I've heard more sound, informed theater reviews on a Greyhound bus.”

39. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 01:14PM

“Promoting netflix in a theatre review? Disgusting.”

40. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 01:19PM

“PW has definitely gotten REAL shitty over the years.”

41. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 01:23PM

“ugh. honestly. what's the point of reviewing for theatre if you don't understand what the purpose of theatre is? theatre doesn't serve the same function as film at a fundamental level. comparing the two is pointless at best and destructive at worst. i wish i came out of this with something more than a book report style summary and a plug for netflix. those of us craving thoughtful and enlightening criticism would do well to stop reading PW's inane ramblings of personal preference!”

42. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 01:23PM

“ugh. honestly. what's the point of reviewing for theatre if you don't understand what the purpose of theatre is? theatre doesn't serve the same function as film at a fundamental level. comparing the two is pointless at best and destructive at worst. i wish i came out of this with something more than a book report style summary and a plug for netflix. those of us craving thoughtful and enlightening criticism would do well to stop reading PW's inane ramblings of personal preference!”

43. Sara May said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 01:54PM

“Ms. Finkbiner, why be a theater critic at all, if you hate the theater so much? Better instead to stay home and watch movies. This is a terrible and irresponsible review that does absolutely no justice to our thriving theater community. I am proud to live in a city where artists and technicians can make a decent living while creating art. How dare you imply that their efforts aren't worth the price of a ticket? It would be like someone claiming that you shouldn't make money for your writing. Insulting. Childish.

All of this combined with the fact that you gave away a major plot point in the review makes me believe you have no business writing about theater. You clearly have zero appreciation for the hard work that these artists put forth and no concept of how a theatrical review is actually written. Shame on you.”

44. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 01:58PM

“The only light at the end of this dark, dark tunnel is the 42 previous comments not defend a theater, performance, etc but the collective defense of the Arts.

As artsits we understand that reviews are part of the business, but when the very business we are so committed to is threatened...a call to action must be made.

Make your voice heard any way you can: twitter, facebook, direct emails....this goes beyond a bad review, this directly impacts all arts organizations, people's livings, commerce, neigborhoods, travel....shame on the editors for allowing such detrimental reporting.”

45. Who ARE you? said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 01:59PM

“FYI Ms. "Reviewer"...one of the amazing things about theater, is recreating a character. Something in my opinion, Ms. Keiper did beautifully. Let's also recap for a quick second...you read the SCREENplay back in high school and thought the film pinpointed exactly what you had envisioned. Fair enough. However, next time, try reading the STAGE play before you make a fool of yourself by comparing a big budget film with intimate, live theater. Next time, give your FREE press ticket to someone more deserving and stay home with your Netflix.”

46. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 02:14PM

“Let's be honest. This isn't really a review. She doesn't give us any insight into this version of PROOF. She just says that Davy is cute. I love Netflix as much as the next guy. But maybe Nicole should write shitty movie reviews instead of attacking the theatre community in her town?If her crappy review shows us anything, it's that the Philly theatre community is a family.”

47. Mark Fields said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 02:20PM

“Clearly, this review has touched a nerve in the arts community, and understandably so. Comparison is not an inappropriate device to use in a review but that comparison has to be fair by comparing like to like. Setting aside the comparison of small local production to Hollywood studio film, the bigger problem is comparing two very different art forms.

A dramatic story enacted by live performers in front of a living, breathing audience is inherently different than a film of the same story. So is a song recorded on an album different than the same tune performed live in concert. That this reviewer fails to understand that distinction is the true issue in this case. For her to go farther and suggest that one canned, immutable experience represents a greater financial value than a live one is both insulting and sad.

I'm unwilling to pillory her (as others have done here). I just hope she learns from her mistake.”

48. Angela S. said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 02:36PM

“I couldn't comment until I wiped the tears of laughter from my eyes - because surely this article is a joke. It is the most comical excuse for theatre commentary I have ever read.”

49. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 02:48PM

“This is incredibly irresponsible and the editor and PW ought to be ashamed for allowing this drivel to be published. The writer ought to be ashamed at how unprofessional and ignorant she is as a "theater reviewer." That said, I think we all wish she had just stayed home with her Netflix. This reads like a high school student wrote it (sorry high school students.) For shame that a local weekly has so blatantly shown itself to be wholly unsupportive of live theater.”

50. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 02:57PM

“”

51. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 03:01PM

“The primary problem is the obvious lack of knowledge which lead to ignorant opinions and then a warning to stop supporting the theatre (a vital part of any community, esp. Philadelphia) and instead sit on a couch. This is the exact opposite message that any arts writer should ever promote. Encourage people to experience the theatre or at least understand the craft before you tell people not to.

Employ writers with a respect, knowledge, and understanding of the subject matter. Problem solved.”

52. The Defender said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 03:03PM

“I for one loved the play as well as the movie. However, I don't think bashing Ms. Finkbiner's review is going to make it a better play. The actors did a wonderful job and I would be glad to see them in another play but they aren't God-like.”

53. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 03:11PM

“Again, this has nothing to do with the quality of this particular production. It could be the worst production of Proof in history (which I'm sure it isn't, having seen the worst about 5 years ago). What has incensed the theatre community is the lack of respect she shows for theatre in general. Her article gives professional theatre critics a bad name and her employment by PW is just as big a slap in the face to the many thoughtful, insightful, hard-as-nails theatre critics here in the city as it is to the rest of the theatre professionals that call Philly their home.”

54. DJ said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 03:18PM

“To #52 (The Defender), I don't think you get the point. A theatre reviewer who promotes renting a Netflix DVD as opposed to supporting live theatre is a travesty. SERIOUSLY?! Who does such an unprofessional thing? Obviously one who does not really care for the future of live theatre and therefore should not be reviewing it. THE END. PW should be ashamed.”

55. Ron Ozer said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 03:30PM

“The movie of Proof is not very good at all, I have seen this done at a community theater in Delaware and it was much more powerful. Still the idea of evaluating a play compared to a movie is simply silly, and reflects a lack of imagination on the writer's part.”

56. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 03:56PM

“This explains quite a bit. From Ms. Finkbiner's description of herself on examiner.com: "Igraduated [sic] from Temple University with a bachelor's degree in magazine journalism. On my list of priorities, writing and watching TV come before sleeping and social interaction. I particularly enjoys [sic]comedies and am totally obsessed with Tina Fey."”

“Really? That's a review? Where did you get your experience? How often have you been to a live theatre? Come on! I saw Proof on Broadway, I saw the film and I happened to see the production at the Walnut. Seeing the show in a small theatre was pretty terrific. The pain in the character's situation was so much more compelling because they're right there. It's like being in a room with friends (who are actually alive - not one dimensional). The difference in the stage script and the film script couldn't be more stark. Act one is mystery about sanity and insanity. Act 2 is the mystery on the proof and who wrote it. The film became a star vehicle - more about her than about the characters as written. If per chance you are old enough to understand the fears of being like your parents (the positive and the negative), perchance you'd understand the underlying fears that the play touches on. Perhaps a little more life experience is in order - and maybe a bit more professionalism.”

61. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 04:06PM

“In addition to all of the above....what editor allowed the total spoiler of a photo caption to be printed? Did they intend to ruin the beautiful and surprising moment at the end of the first act for those who haven't seen the play? Shame. Shame. (I write this trusting that those reading this are theatre-educated enought to know the play well...or have clearly already read the photo caption and the damage is done).

I am however heartened to see such a uprising of deserved outrage...the theater is clearly alive and well in Philadelphia”

62. Suzanne Stein said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 04:18PM

“Theatre is not film; film is not theatre. One experience is not a substitute for the other.

Fine and good that you didn't care for the play, but referring people to Netflix to watch something on film because it's cheaper is wildly inappropriate.

This review is a disgrace, and I'm heartened to see so many others expressing the same sentiment. Perhaps, after reading these reactions, PW will replace Ms. Finkbiner with someone who can more easily distinguish the differences between film and theatre.”

63. Tim said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 04:23PM

“Where. The Hell. is J. Cooper. Robb.”

64. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 04:46PM

“I’m pretty sure one of the first things they teach in journalism is know your audience. And to be clear, you wrote a theatre review telling the entire Philadelphia theatre community (the majority of your readers) to choose renting a movie over seeing theatre? Not the smartest move …

Judging by the above, it seems that your audience has spoken on the subject.”

65. JennB said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 05:03PM

“This "review" saddens me as both a writer and a performing arts professional. As so many have already noted, it is irresponsible, unprofessional, and quite frankly amateurishly dumb for a "theater critic" to suggest that her readers rent a Netflix movie instead of paying to see a theater performance. It's insulting to suggest the artists, crew, and staff that work feverishly to produce high quality work are not worthy of the price of a ticket. It's demeaning to all of us who give so much of our time and energy within the theater and performing arts fields and who care about strengthening the arts within our community. Shame on you, PW, for allowing this article to go anywhere but in the shredder.”

66. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 05:16PM

“WOW - PW is a media sponsor for this show! Yikes!”

67. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 05:43PM

“But did any of this ruin her job? Absolutely not. It would be pretty hard to screw up an entire newspaper. But just remember that a New York Times subscription costs $30 and a Philly Weekly is FREE.

Yep, Mz. Finkbiner, your job can be cheapened too. ”

68. Doug said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 06:05PM

“From looking at all these comments its "Proof" that theater dorks have no life. My suggestion is for everyone of you to get one. Netflix 4 Life...Ms. Finkbiner is awesome!”

69. Joe said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 06:29PM

“Wow. Just...wow. This is probably the worst review I've ever read. If you can even call it a review.

I imagine the author is one of those who rented movies and wrote reports on them as opposed to actually reading the book itself.

On the other hand, this is a great example of "Why reviews do NOT matter".”

70. Anonymous said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 07:03PM

“people forget when movies and plays get bad or "put off" reviews that it actually drives an audience to check them out for themselves, which in turn, HELPS the production. think of napoleon dynamite, phonebooth, or any movie sequel....people gave tons of comments like "i didn't understand it ; one scene? ; the original was better." and suddenly it's a box office hit regardless of opinion. no two people will ever have the same reaction- to anything. accept this, and then go experience it for yourself rather than bashing someones judgement and form of free speech.”

71. Mark Cofta said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 07:07PM

“Hey everybody, bash critics specifically and individually, not in general; don't lump us (I'm a critic with City Paper) in with this ignorant scribbler. And, though I agree with many comments above, I think it's cheap and mean to not sign your name to your comments. Take responsibility for what you write and identify yourselves! This could be a meaningful discussion about criticism and the differences between theatre and film.”

72. Cheetah said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 07:28PM

“Really??!! I thought reviews meant to see a play OR a movie and stack it up to others in the same genre. Ms. Finkbiner certainly didn't do that. How can a play be compared to a movie that took millions to make? Did you make the mistake of watching the movie before going to "review" the play, maybe to get an idea of what you were in for?!! Bad move. You clearly blew this and I don't think you had the right to "sell" Netflix over a ticket to see it on stage!! Now I know why I listen to my own peers when asking for a "review"!! Shame on you!”

73. LN Holden said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:26PM

“..But someone above her allowed this to be printed. Someone above Nicole approved and made room for her article. Not only should Nicole be reprimanded, but also her supervisor/editor really needs to be questioned and reprimanded just as harshly as Nicole.”

74. Tiffany said... on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:09PM

“Apparently several of you didn’t really read the review before you decided to contribute your outraged commentary. There are a few main things that the majority of the comments above completely ignore:

1. She clearly states that she read the play’s original script in high school, which is why she was happy to finally see it live in the theater.

2. She then proceeds to acknowledge the value of live theater.

3. She merely uses the film to illustrate her points--a way to explain to readers why this particular production wasn’t as captivating as she hoped it would be, rather than simply saying, “I didn’t like how Keiper played Catherine and I don't know why.”

4. It’s not the writer’s job to appease or cater to the members of the local theater community. She’s writing the review with the average Philadelphian in mind. And because the average Philadelphian doesn’t go to the theater very often (if at all), it seems safe to say they would much rather pay $7 to see a movie than pay $30 and not be totally satisfied.

5. The review is only about this particular run of Proof. In no way is she devaluing theater in this city as a whole. To say that she’s telling readers to go get a Netflix account instead of seeing any local theater production is just absurd.”

75. John F. Smith said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 12:09AM

“A review is an opinion. My opinion is that this is the best production I've seen at the Studio on 3 in five years. The performances were spot on tonight. Maybe they weren't spot on the night Ms. Finkbinder saw it. That's the thing about the stage as opposed to movies . Every performance is different”

76. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 12:29AM

“Let me begin: I am an AVID theatre-goer in Philadelphia/NYC and sometimes see up to several productions in a week around town. I am also a Netflix "instant viewing" subscriber And yes, this review is quite badly written. HOWEVER, in today's economic climate $30 is A LOT of money. No matter how you cut it. And for Ms. Finkbiner to suggest that an audience member should consider passing on the Walnut's production of PROOF and to, instead, rent the film version (which in Ms. Finkbiner's opinion is a considerably better interpretation of the story) is not without merit. I've never seen PROOF--the film or the play. Ms. Finkbiner thinks the film version is much better than the Walnut's staging of the piece. $30 is a crap load of money for me. And I love seeing and supporting love theatre. Local productions of Body Awareness, Clybourne Park, The Mousetrap are all on my list to see in the in the next few weeks. But, in this case, thanks to Ms. Finkbiner...I might go with Netflix in this case.”

77. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 12:31AM

“Let me begin: I am an AVID theatre-goer in Philadelphia/NYC and sometimes see up to several productions in a week around town. I am also a Netflix "instant viewing" subscriber And yes, this review is quite badly written. HOWEVER, in today's economic climate $30 is A LOT of money. No matter how you cut it. And for Ms. Finkbiner to suggest that an audience member should consider passing on the Walnut's production of PROOF and to, instead, rent the film version (which in Ms. Finkbiner's opinion is a considerably better interpretation of the story) is not without merit. I've never seen PROOF--the film or the play. Ms. Finkbiner thinks the film version is much better than the Walnut's staging of the piece. $30 is a crap load of money for me. And I love seeing and supporting love theatre. Local productions of Body Awareness, Clybourne Park, The Mousetrap are all on my list to see in the in the next few weeks. But, in this case, thanks to Ms. Finkbiner...I might go with Netflix instead.”

78. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 12:49AM

“I see a TON of theatre in Philly...sometimes multiple productions in a week. I also have a Netflix account (instant viewing). However, you can't argue that times are tough economically and $30 is A LOT of money to spend on a ticket to a play...no matter how well recommend the production comes. I have never seen Proof--film or stage play. Nor have I ever read the script or screenplay. I am not condoning Ms. Finkbiner's skill as a writer/columnist/reviewer. Her structural, technical, and language skills need a considerable amount of work if Philly Weekly would like for her to continue to review productions around town. HOWEVER, she clearly didn't think that the Walnut's staging of PROOF was a strong interpretation of the piece. BUT she feels that the film version IS. What Ms. Finkbiner is suggesting is that an audience member should consider passing on this production and, instead, checking out the film version instead. Money is tight. Thus, I am streaming PROOF tonight and staying in.”

79. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 01:19AM

“Tiffany-

Would you say that a journalist who covers local politics should cover the topic in a way that goes no deeper than the "average" Philadelphian?

No- her job is not to write with the average Philadelphian in mind. Her job is to bring the average reader to a higher level.

It is not acceptable for a paper that claims to cover Arts and Cultures to allow an article of this level to be published. Philadelphia would not accept sports coverage from a person who knows nothing of sports. It would be unacceptable for a food critic to talk about a restaurant with no more knowledge than the "average" Philadelphian.

This was not a homework assignment. She does not get congratulated because she didn't just say "“I don't know why..."

It actually is important to say this sort of response is not appropriate. I am sorry Miss Finkbiner was put in this position at all. She is an intern.”

80. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 01:24AM

“This review, which really is the wrong word for it, is why no intelligent person would look to this publication to read about theatre. And everyone who has posted has just excited the PW folks into thinking what they do matters. It does not. I am only here because folks are all talking about this dumb article. Why go to the theatre at all? Just watch movies. And anyone who compares these two entirely different art forms is an idiot!”

81. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 02:06AM

“if you would like to read more from the mind of Miss Finkbiner- take look at this. http://canyaheelme.com/2011/10/02/the-ethics-of-blogging-a-philadelphia-fashion-week-controversy/

This is not the first time this "writer" has been called out for silly, immature "reporting".”

82. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 02:10AM

“if you would like to read more from the mind of Miss Finkbiner- take look at this. http://canyaheelme.com/2011/10/02/the-ethics-of-blogging-a-philadelphia-fashion-week-controversy/

This is not the first time this "writer" has been called out for silly, immature "reporting".”

83. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 02:55AM

“This is a joke, right? How hard can it be to find a literate semi-intelligent person to actually review the play?”

84. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 08:06AM

“In my attempt to pinpoint what went wrong, I couldn't help comparing it to "Charlie Bit My Finger." The little boy whose finger was bitten nails it. He's vividly relaying how his finger was bitten and that he doesn't like it. Why can't this play be more like that? Also, people like cats. Why aren't there more of those?

I'm gonna have to check out this Gwyneth Paltrow movie. Bet it was a huge box office success! She was in Glee!”

85. David Fleming said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:06AM

“Maybe it is the 45 years of great experiences I have had sitting in theater seats as live actors have moved me to emotional heights that have never been equaled in a movie theater, but something tells me that this reviewer lacks either the training, experience, or perception to understand and appreciate the difference between a Netfix night and one spent engaged in live theater.

I enjoy Netflix as a convenience, but unlike Ms. Finkbiner, I understand that the slight "buzz" that comes from viewing a film on the little screen is not in the same category as good theater experienced live. Perhaps after reading these many responses she will endeavor to explore that difference a bit more extensively.”

86. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:31AM

“Tiffany - You are clearly a friend or a co-worker of Nicole and you certainly know nothing about Theatre.Do you have any idea how much money is involved in producing a play?$30 for the cost of a ticket goes towards paying for the rights of the play, (hopefully) having money to pay the actors, director, costume designer, paying for the scenery to be built, paying for the rental of the theatre space, paying (hopefully) for the Tech person who is running lights and sound, and paying for the props and costumes used in the show.At the end of all of that $30 to see LIVE theatre (beautiful, poignant, emotional stories being told for an audience) that people have been working tirelessly on for probably about 3 months - $30 is a steal! ”

87. Ghost of Edwin Forrest said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:51AM

“Tiffany stated: 4. "It’s not the writer’s job to appease or cater to the members of the local theater community. She’s writing the review with the average Philadelphian in mind. And because the average Philadelphian doesn’t go to the theater very often (if at all), it seems safe to say they would much rather pay $7 to see a movie than pay $30 and not be totally satisfied."

IF AT ALL?

IF AT ALL?

The Walnut Street Theatre is the most subscribed theatre in the world with 56,000 subscribers. It is the oldest continually operating theatre in the English-speaking language. 400,000 people pass through those 200 year old doors yearly.

Proof is already sold out for the entire run so your friend's (I'm sure she must be a friend since you're the only one defending her) review is useless anyway.

You know NOTHING about the Philadelphia Theater Community so stop defending your loser roommate. And on top of that, you've made a grave error of an insult”

88. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:41AM

“This is rather pathetic. Moreover, it says nothing about the actual production, the designers, Kate Galvin's direction, the work of the other actors. This has no dramaturgical value, and it doesn't treat the piece as an independent work of art, but rather as an extension of a rather poorly made film. Proof was written as a play. The fact that it was turned into a film is all well and good, but clearly the intention of the work was to be produced as a play. Writing a good review that meets the piece on it's own terms means only focusing on the piece in front of you, not the movie or another production or some other show you saw one of the actors in. The task of a reviewer is to deal with that which is in front of them, not to compare it to some other experience. You demean both film and theater when you compare them on these terms. And quite frankly, I feel sorry for the Ms. Finkbiner, who had the opportunity to see an intimate production of a moving and thoughtful play, but wasted it.”

89. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:47AM

“This is rather pathetic. I feel sorry for this author, who had the opportunity to see a piece of live theater and instead spent her time longing for Gweneth Paltrow, the same actress who brought us Country Strong.

What about the design? What about Kate Galvin's direction? What about the other actors onstage? This review has no dramaturgical relevance or meaning, it refuses to engage with the piece as it is and instead wastes everyone's time with comparison to a film. Comparing film and theater in this way demeans both forms and creates a superficial competition that destroys art. I don't care how you feel about the film version, this was written as a play, so clearly the intention of the piece is to be played live. Love or hate the movie, it's completely irrelevant when you see the live performance. To not see that is to miss the point of theater completely.

And well done, Mark Cofta, for making a comment. Thank you for being a writer who cares about his subject and treats it well.”

90. Michael Walker said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:57AM

“Tiffany:

The reason why I am offended at what Ms. Finkbiner has written, mostly comes from her lack of respect for THEATRE. Theatre is a hard business/art form to survive in and most non-for-profit theaters (Walnut Street), rely on subscriptions, donations, and government support just in order to break even. It is irresponsible and detrimental to the art form when you say things like, "But just remember that a Netflix subscription costs $7.99 and a theater ticket is $30. Problem solved." That's like saying, "Don't go see the natural beauty of the Grand Canyon. Just look at a picture of it."

If she didn't like the show, that's fine. Who cares? It's her opinion. But to suggest that renting the movie is the better option seems to be irresponsible to the art form.

Also, if Ms. Finkbiner had attempted to write about the set, lights, costumes, and sound, she might have a bit more credibility. There is more to a production than just words and acting.”

91. katherine f said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 12:15PM

“Tiffany, the anger directed at Ms. Finkbiner doesn't stem from childish outrage at a "bad review." This actually speaks to a community of people who do hold critics in high esteem, and who understand journalistic integrity. Critics receive backlash all the time -- Ben Brantley's opinions are frequently challenged, or if we insist on using film as a medium in this discussion, look no further than Pauline Kael -- and this is an entirely different argument. While those more famed critics' opinions can be challenged, no one has ever called into question their fundamental understanding about the subject matter at hand. In Ms. Finkbiner's case, the outrage seems to stem from the fact that someone has deemed this woman a critic and printed this article, despite the fact that she seems quite ignorant about the basic principles of dramaturgy and theatre criticism. Perhaps it is also the fault of Temple University, for allowing her to graduate with a Journalism degree? How does she have a job?”

92. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 01:46PM

“I really must say I feel this outrage to be a bit unnecessary. The reviewer was excited to see the play and was underwhelmed by the performance. You are all right, there was little mention of the set and design and the directors interpretation of the work, etc. But the play's foundation is on the characters and she was not impressed with their job. Should she have compared this to a movie adaptation? Maybe not. Should the reporter lose her job? That is silly and I think anyone who has suggested such would quietly agree once the rage of reading a bad review dies down. To be honest I feel this "off with her head" response is a poor representation of the local theater community. You all should have acted more like grown ups with your feedback. You are embarrassing anyone who has anything to do with this production. Especially since anyone who reads these comments will think that you are. Finally, I think the point about the Netflix price was that the play might not be worth seeing.”

93. Dan said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 01:58PM

“When is Nicole going to do a theater review ?????”

94. Seth said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 03:03PM

“Can I just point out that the first part of this review reads like a Cliffs Notes entry? I don't need to see a plot summary of a play, barely enlivened by a few short opinions about the acting, staging, etc in a review. Mind you, after reading the rest of it, I'm not sure the author really understands what a review is.”

95. The Proof is in the Show said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 03:20PM

“The thing that bothers me most about this "review" is that it's not, in fact, much of a review.

It saddens me to learn that in today's society one would rather rent a movie than see a live performance. I've had the privilege of seeing this production during previews and I must say I was blown away. The intimate space provided by the Walnut's Studio 3 is incredible. I felt like I was part of the show; it was like I could feel the energy coming off the stage. Alex Keiper's performance is emotional and captivating. David Raphaely, Bill Van Horn and Krista Apple round out this star-studded cast. Although there are only 4 people in this show, they bring all the power & punch of a cast of 40. I laughed, I cried, and above all else, I was entertained. For those of you who don't mind spending a little more than a $7.99, I would definitely recommend seeing a great show at a great theatre”

96. John F. Smith said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 03:45PM

“As long as we're bandying prices about, my wife and I subscribe to Studio on 3 every year and a weeknight seat costs $75 per 5 shows. That's, yes, $15 per show. I'm sure that price would barely cover the productions let alone the rights to the productions. Please don't let a poor review do anything to keep you away from these amazingly affordable stage shows. Read the other reviews - I've seen three others that are full of nothing but praise for Proof. Read the Phila. Inquirer review. Go see the play and make up your own mind.”

97. steven douglas said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 04:46PM

“To Anonymous 1-88 this is not a New York times review. This is Ms. Finkbiner's opinion nothing more, but you abbot readers knew that already. Seriously people, it's PW 75% of it has porn ads. Take it for what it is "A FREE PAPER". I haven't seen this many pissed off gay people since Lady ga ga canceled her Borgata show. Listen nobody here is going to mistake Ms. Finkbiner's style of writing with "Hemingway's" or even "Dr. Suess"s. Furthermore keep up the good work Ms. Finkbiner I love watching people over react. To PW I will continue to read your paper because I like knowing what's going on in Philadelphia that I regularly wouldn't know if I didn't read you.”

98. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 05:14PM

“This is an absolute disgrace to all theatre participants. Let's get real: you should not be a theatre critic. I'm waiting to read about THIS production and you have told me nothing I do not already know. Thank you for a C movie plot summary. I wish there was an actual opinion about THIS production. I am very disappointed.”

99. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:26PM

“Ummmm...I thought I was supposed to read a theater review of Proof at the Walnut Street Theater? What was this crap? I learned nothing. I am not even going to touch how wrong the Netflix comment is. Jeez, if you feel that strongly at least recommend another play. What is an intern doing theater reviews for anyway? And where is the editor?”

100. Anonymous said... on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:26PM

“Ummmm...I thought I was supposed to read a theater review of Proof at the Walnut Street Theater? What was this crap? I learned nothing. I am not even going to touch how wrong the Netflix comment is. Jeez, if you feel that strongly at least recommend another play. What is an intern doing theater reviews for anyway? And where is the editor?”

101. Anonymous said... on Jan 27, 2012 at 08:15AM

“Nicole, be encouraged to know that a writing career has ups and downs. This is a down that should have been caught by your editor.

Hey PW. Bad form. EDIT MUCH?”

102. Nanutchka said... on Jan 27, 2012 at 11:24AM

“PW: I would choose live theater over a netflix film ANYDAY!

[Ms. Finkbiner, I get the sense you are not entirely comfortable writing about this topic. I would suggest that your editor assign you "popular culture" events and leave the theater reviews to a more knowledgable writer.]”

103. Anonymous said... on Jan 27, 2012 at 12:11PM

“I have seen Proof multiple times as well as the movies and I found the recent WST production to be the most superior production ever.

This review did not mention the costume design, the direction, or why they thought the choice of having the entire show on the back porch was not the right choice. All the was mentioned were the actors and not much was really said about them.

This review has was too much plot summary to the point where I feel like I do not have to ever see the show because everything was listed in the review.

This show is a truly brilliant piece of theatre and this review is the antithesis of what a theatre review should be.”

“As Executive Director of the Theatre Alliance of Greater Philadelphia I want to express my dismay over the awkward and amateurish review of the play Proof, recently published in PW. While I am not calling into question theparticular opinions of this critic, I am calling out the judgment of the editor for allowing such a poorly crafted piece to run. To suggest that a theatre-goer is better served by downloading the Netflick suggests the reviewer is staggeringly oblivious to why people choose live theatre over film in the first place. Just as theatre artists are held accountable to high quality performances by their audiences, we must expect the editors of our major media outlets to do the same with their critics. Sincerely Margie Salvante”